Hmm, this is interesting, I've actually always had trouble OCing my card's memory, I found it would only oc in 5mhz increments, and naturally I thought as with any ocing, do it bit by bit and find out where it's stable. usually I found ocing the memory caused quite a fair bit of instability, I pushed as far as 520MHz and found I'd be getting blackscreens or outright crashes.

Now after reading this tidbit from Jonas:

I decided, alright lets just try ocing to 545 and you know what? It worked and it didn't crash or give me a blackscreen, I then tried 600MHz and once again, it didn't crash but sadly, I was getting artifacts (green speckles etc).

The only conclusion I can draw is, ocing hbm is a little tricky and requires a different approach. - I guess this is also why the internal timings are important.

Sadly ocing my card's memory is pretty pointless, my card's gpu isn't a strong overclocker it's temps are great but it just can't be pushed that far at all. :'(

Click to expand...

The Nitro is using a custom PCB though far as overclock results go that's still up to chance though voltage might be better and the Nitro can go above 1.3v without crashing (Only Fury GPU that can?) though that's pretty high so unless you're trying to go above 1100Mhz (Or higher.) it's probably not worth going too crazy with upping voltage.

Far as ASIC is concerned Fury GPU's tended to be around the 60's percentage going by GPU-Z (My own is at 52%) since it's the Fury X that gets the best binned chips (And the Nano I think is also getting pretty high quality ones.) though ASIC doesn't really relate to overclock results by any direct comparison either from what I've read up on. (Leakage might actually benefit overclocking a little bit even.)

Oh and there's two Nitro models, one uses 1020Mhz and the other 1050 though the 1020 can probably be upped to 1050 without issue although some have problems going much higher than that but it's pretty random from what I've read with some GPU's not being able to go above 1070 without a heavy voltage increase whereas others can do 1100 and above so seems down to pure chance really what your own GPU will be able to achieve and what it will take to achieve such speeds while remaining completely stable.

Another downside with the Nitro at least for more recent models is that it's not possible to unlock the disabled cores though performance is usually not affected by that much either from doing this although it can help occasionally even outside of benchmarking but as I far as I remember the stock Fury compared to Fury X was about 10% slower or some such really low number and that's in benchmarking software so they're pretty close already by default.

VRM's get pretty hot too which some of the third party Fury GPU designs improve on over the stock water cooler although well the Tri-X and Nitro might have gotten points for it's silent and efficient cooler but that's primarily because it tends to stick around 20 maybe 30% speed by default, once it goes above 40% speed it gets pretty audible and above 60% it gets downright loud.

It's still pretty effective even at lower speeds though aside from the occasional game that for whatever reason causes the GPU and VRM components to heat up to where the fan kicks in at 100% ha now that's a pretty high noise level.

Then we proceed to the analysis of the results of our test. So, something to learn what solutions are the fastest graphics card in the game in 2016, we sum up their total FPS in games we tested.

So we see that in the resolution 1920x1080 the three leaders entered solutions - GEFORCE GTX 1080 the SLI, GEFORCE GTX 1080 and GEFORCE GTX 1070 . If the choice of single-chip solutions, the result is identical - GEFORCE GTX 1080 , GEFORCE GTX 1070 and GEFORCE GTX 980 of Ti .
Below we present a generic graph with a resolution 2560h1440.

At a resolution of 2560h1440 the three leaders entered solutions - GEFORCE the GTX 1080 the SLI, GEFORCE 1080 the GTX and the Radeon R9 are the X Fury has the CF . If the choice of single-chip solutions, the result is as follows - GEFORCE 1080 the GTX , GEFORCE 1070 the GTX and the Radeon R9 are Fury has the X .
Below we present a generic graph with a resolution 3840h2160.

Right now (also future proof) best Option up to even 4k (with resonable Options) is Fiji Base GPU.
You got best FPS/$ IMO (THX to Fiji Nitro OC+ i've got now 600€ for ZEN based System)
Also FreeSynced Monitors are Cheaper, Best now is Samsung QLED (quantumDot) curved 1440p

Original post about this was from a AMD community representative I believe (AMDMatt?) and then a lot of other posts after argued for and against this being the case but I don't know if aside from what the AMD guy said anything was ever definitively proven on how that works.

Click to expand...

From this post in the OCN Fiji bios mod thread me and other members tested HBM clock steps.

I was a disbeliever on HBM having steps, but I do now believe it does and AMDMatt was giving correct info.

600 Mhz seems to be about as good as it gets and only the better binned Fury GPU's manage that, unsure about actual gains outside of benchmarks though as I couldn't find any.
(545 is a bit more manageable but at worst you'd need to up memory voltage and I believe that's only doable via bios editing.)

Click to expand...

I have not done games testing yet, due to a number of reasons. For example I may do something different in game between each run. I may test some games with in game benchs as they would be set GPU work load.

OP will soon have more data, showing how differing ASIC quality didn't lead to better performance scaling at same clocks. Why I wanted to investigate that was due to how voltage increase can impact Fiji performance scaling negatively. Higher ASIC quality showed no improved performance scaling with increased voltage vs lower ASIC quality. In the tests it also showed higher ASIC quality GPU draw more Amps over VRM vs lower quality ASIC, which The Stilt has highlighted several times in several threads, Hawaii bios mod OP on OCN has quotes of The Stilt on ASIC quality.

Haven't compared against other countries but checking some stores here the few remaining Fury GPU's here seem to hover around ~400 USD, for the 1070 it's priced at around 500 - 550 USD depending on model.
(For my own GPU I got lucky since this particular model was part of a sale but now it's the 480's that are seeing discounts instead.)

Only one or two Fury GPU models though for the stores that still stock them compared to the 1070 which has a number of different models.

Understandable I suppose since the Fury is pretty much EOL now and only available in very limited quantities along with some of the reference Fury X GPU's which are still around but they're priced at 600 USD or above having not changed much in pricing since release.

480 is pretty nicely priced though, around 340 USD for the 8 GB model though it is weaker in terms of raw performance compared to the Fury but far more readily available in a number of different models and there's the 4 GB version too for a bit less though I would go for 8 GB just to be sure if possible.

As for the 1080 that seems to vary a bit more from around 800 to 900 USD when converted from SEK, depending on model.
(There's a lot of them, including various bundles for even more money.)

Nothing on the Titan X Pascal though but I think that's sold via Nvidia directly and only via Nvidia.

EDIT: And yeah compared to the US the PC system hardware here in the EU tend to be more expensive.
(From what I know Sweden is a bit on the expensive side compared to much of the rest of the EU too but I think I remember reading Finland having higher prices still.)